[Tagging] site relation definition

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Wed Jun 17 19:38:50 UTC 2020


Are there any examples of a type=site relation used with a natural=*
feature tag where this is appropriate?

In the list of combinations natural=* is not shown (less than 1000 uses):
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=site#combinations

About 50% of current site relations are from an import, and are combined
with site=geodesic +
source=©IGN␣2010␣dans␣le␣cadre␣de␣la␣cartographie␣réglem + network=NTF-4 or
NTF-5

Another 28% are site=stop_area + source
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source>=naptan_import
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=naptan_import> +

The most common tags that specify a feature type are amenity=* (3 869
uses), power=* (2886 uses), heritage=* and historic=* (1358 uses).

 These are all man-made features.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:51 AM Yves <yvecai at mailbox.org> wrote:

> Yes, restricting to 'man-made' objects doesn't make sense.
>
> This relation type is particularly unloved, yet it is not by restricting
> its definition in the wiki to something less that it is 'in use' for that
> it will automatically disappear.
>
> Yves _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200617/74dca17c/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list